Downward Departure

A lawyer who also served as a police officer has been censured by the New Jersey Supreme Court for criminal conduct that involved illegal cocaine use. 

From January 2011 until August 2018, the Montvale Police Department in Bergen County, New Jersey employed respondent as a police officer and as a detective. During the same timeframe, respondent practiced law, on a per diem basis, in association with a law firm.

He had failed to report for work which led to the police checking up on him.

That led to the discovery of cocaine residue items in his residence. 

Based on their observations, the officers arrested respondent and advised him of his constitutional rights. Respondent waived his rights and admitted that he had used two-and-one-half bags of cocaine throughout the night and had last ingested cocaine forty-five minutes before the officers’ arrival.

He was granted pretrial intervention.

The Disciplinary Review Board (excerpts quoted above) had recommended a downward departure from a presumptive three-month suspension

Regardless of the nature of the criminal offense, the quantum of discipline typically is enhanced when the attorney is a member of law enforcement or a public servant at the time of the RPC 8.4(b) violation.

..The Court rarely has departed downward from the standard three-month suspension. Such a departure has occurred only when the attorney has established significant rehabilitation and remorse.

Here

On balance, we assign significant weight to the great strides respondent has made since his arrest. His rehabilitation from his period of drug abuse is laudable. He has sought counseling, maintained his sobriety, and now fervently seeks to help others. Respondent’s significant and consistent steps towards rehabilitation, along with the other mitigating factors detailed above, persuaded us that respondent’s case is most akin to those of the attorneys in Filomeno, Simone, and De Sevo. We, thus, determine to impose a censure – a quantum of discipline less than the term of suspension presumed under McLaughlin. In return, to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar, we impose conditions similar to those imposed in Simone and Filomena. Specifically, like the attorney in Simone, respondent is required to submit drug screens, on a quarterly basis for one year, to the OAE. The drug screens will be performed by an independent drug testing facility acceptable to the OAE. Moreover, pursuant to Filomeno, we further require respondent to continue to participate in self-help recovery meetings, on at least a monthly basis, for two years.

(Mike Frisch)